tv Politics and Public Policy Today CSPAN May 2, 2016 9:00am-11:01am EDT
captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2008 >> ma'am my intention with that comment was to admit that the middle management and the senior level leadership hasn't provided the necessary leadership to support the administrator to let it be known that they have bought no, no matter how long he's there, whatever he has said should be carried out. whether he's there a day or four years. once he decrees it, it should be carried out regardless of the timeframe. that was my intent. >> do you think you could share with me some of the things that you think need to be institutionalized under mr. neffenger's leadership that would help this agency?
>> yes, i do. he's come out specifically. and when he has his weekly staff meetings he's interested in five things. he wants to know how well we're doing in the airports with the precheck, about the acquisitions, how we're doing with the budget, he wants to know how we're doing with the moral. he's very clear with where he's going. i can provide you that information very clearly. >> thank you. i yield back my time. >> gentleman from north carolina, mr. meadows. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank each of you for your system here today, for you willingness on behalf of the american people to speak up. we know that it does not come without risk. and i for one am committed to making sure that all of our federal employees are treated fairly and certainly when we see retaliation it is troubling. dr. livingston, when i hear some
of your testimony, i always watch the audience and i see people nodding their head yes or shaking their head that they can't believe these kind of things are happening. so let me just make sure that i'm clear. during your probationary period were there areas where you were able to appeal to other -- like the special council? did you appeal some of the decision to those or could you have appealed to those? >> sir, the rules from opm is it's a one-year probationary. they have any right to terminate you for any reason. under the current guidelines there's no recourse. the problem is i was never told one time either in writing or verbal to adjust. what i do have is a record of 96 e-mails saying great job. what i do have is a midterm saying great job. there was no indication there was ever a problem. i was told on a monday great job over the weekend working for some work for the white house.
>> right. >> i was told tuesday that you're being nominated for an award and i was told thursday you're done. >> you do have a claim currently with osc, is that correct? >> yes, i have a petition. >> how about from an eeoc. >> i've filed a lawsuit and an eeo as well. >> so you have those two appeals, i guess, sitting out there or at least requests at this particular point. i just wanted to make sure that that's clear, that in addition to this probationary period you've actually filed in those two areas, is that correct?? >> it is a first time for me in 36 years, sir, but i have. >> that's fine when injustice happens or that perceived injustice, want to make sure that you are given the right to appeal. let me go a little further because part of this is a federal employee mismanagement issue.
but the american taxpayers probably are not as in tune to that or care about that as much about the safety and security of air travel. >> yes, sir. >> so do you -- is it your testimony, dr. livingston, that this mismanagement is affecting the safety and security of americans? >> sir, it's my testimony today that we have non-intel professionals running your office of intelligence and analysis. >> so no intel running the office of intelligence. all right. is it your testimony here today that the lack of sufficient management practices within tsa is putting americans at risk? >> mr. meadows, i would say that's the case. let me quantify that. when i talk about the lack of experience in positions, right now this summer we are going into what they call a very
challenging challenging season. and we're looking at situations in these airports where they have recently pulled out the conclusion two aspect of expedited screening. that is a very small part of that whole process and package >> right. >> and because they've done that we're going to have the problem. the problem alone with that is the fact that plan a was to put that in place. but nobody sat down and put a plan b in place if they had to pull any one or all of the options off of the table. in this business you have to understand continuity of operations and it's clear to me just on that alone they didn't have a continuity of operation. that's detrimental to our security. additionally when you're talking about security at the airport, you're talking about things like that app, this randomizer. there are stories out this week about a proposal that existed pre-current administrator about not screening passengers on flights out of airports. to me that speaks in and of itself the level -- >> so your testimony is that correcting this situation is of
the highest priority for the security of the american traveler, is that correct? >> absolutely. >> let me finish in the last few seconds. i was in dullus a few weeks back -- dulles a few weeks back, visiting with customs and border protection as we looked at the vetting of visa overstays and exit of the country. in there they indicated that tsa doesn't check all the background areas of potential workers so they can be on a terrorist watch list. they could have other backgrounds and we're not systematically checking all the backgrounds, resources that we have at our disposal. is that correct, dr. livingston? and i yield back to the chairman. >> sir, let me research and get back to you that. i'm not exactly sure of that. i think that's the case, but let
me get back to you specifically. i don't want to mislead you on that but i can find out. >> the gentle lady, miss kelly. >> just for clarity, mr. rhodes, you told committee staff that after march 1st, 2015 no one has told you that they believe wait times are being falsified. is that what you said to the committee staff? >> ma'am, i described to the committee staff that on march 1st, 2015 i was aware of an incident at minneapolis where a manager was in our coordination center. he was counting the wait times of the people in the check point que and he was pulled away to respond to a real incident at the airport. he had counted approximately 18 minutes and then a new manager came in and i believe she counted either somewhere around five. but we reported 18. >> so is that a yes or no? >> that's, as best as i can tell, is march 1, 2015.
but as i stated earlier, ma'am, when the airport police start having police officers count your wait time, it's an indication of trust. and so i would maybe look at that as the measurement, that when police organizations at airports are starting to count the wait times of your check point security que, then something is wrong. >> but to that question, you don't have a yes or no? >> i don't have any information, ma'am. >> in early 2015, the preliminary results of tests of tsa screening operations conducted by the department of homeland security inspector general leaked to the press. the inspector general made findings that according to the secretary of homeland security jeh johnson, and i quote, were completely unsatisfactory. secretary johnson ordered tsa to implement the ten-point plan. administrator neffenger worked to address what he identified as a, quote, disproportionate focus
on efficiency, speed and screening operations rather than security effectiveness. to that end, administrator neffenger testified before this committee that he has provided new training to, quote, every transportation security officer and supervisor to address the specific vulnerabilities identified by the oid tests. mr. brainard, has your staff received this training? >> yes, ma'am. >> you discussed the impact that this training has had, and you stated, well, the management essentials training obviously has improved our situation in terms of how they conduct their jobs. the thoroughness i mean. there have been improvements in terms of, i think without seeing any test results, the detection
capabilities. is that correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> administrator neffenger also refocused and resolving alarms at check points and testified he is readjusting the measurements of success to focus on security rather than speed. when you spoke with committee staff you were asked whether under administrator neffenger there had been a new emphasis on resolve is the alarm, you said, and i quote, absolutely. is that correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> what is the importance of resolving alarms at the check points? >> making sure that our people are thorough. the job that an officer does is certainly the most important job at tsa. one of the hazards of that job is when you're constantly doing the same job every day, it's easy to get lax.
i use the word culture and i mean that, to improve our culture to make sure that people understand the importance of resolving the alarm versus just clearing the passengers and letting them go. part of that was to explain the limitations of the equipment that we had. these are all things that came out of the tiger team effort, some great stuff that happened. certainly since mr. neffenger has been in, there has been a shift to security and trying to get the pendulum to go back so we strike a balance. but i'll offer to you this, a lot of the things we talk about happened prior to the administration, those testing results, those aren't new. they may have been released, but the previous administration knows what our performance was, and they still implemented a number of different programs and processes which in my opinion did not help our security situation. i've talked with the committee staff members about some other security concerns which have happened. all those things took place when they knew, they knew what the testing results were. as a federal security director, i see the testing results within my aor. i see everything within the state of kansas.
what i didn't see prior was everybody else's but that leadership team did. >> what is the nature and impact of tsa's staffing shortages? >> say that again, ma'am. >> what is the nature and impact of tsa's staffing shortages? i'm out of time after you answer. >> that's a very good question. i can sit here probably for the next 20 minutes and talk about it. >> the chairman won't let you do that. >> i know he won't let me do that. let me just say the most important aspect of this. you know, when we are not properly staffed, it causes our people to be under a lot more stress. now, regardless of how much mr. neffenger or myself or our supervisors preach the importance of resolving the alarm, it puts pressure on the officers. when you lock in the media, you've got airports screaming about the possibility of going privatized. if there's one thing that puts pressure on a federal employee of 13 years is the threat of privatization. that is one thing that is
absolutely at the forefront of their mind. you can't have people focused on the security mission when they're focused on job security. i give mr. neffenger a lot of credit because he's bearing the news to the public, and the word on the street is you remember the day after thanksgiving. that's going to be every day this summer. so it's important for us to make sure that we reassure our officers so that regardless of the fact that somebody is going to have to wait a few extra minutes, we still have their back and have an administrator who fully supports that and that's part of the culture he has established with the tsa. that's a very difficult job, certainly not the most popular job, and we certainly appreciate it. >> mr. chairman, may i add one thing? >> yes. >> we keep talking about the failures at the check points, and candidly, i think that's insulting to tsos, because the leaders put the tsos in that environment. so, yes, they've got a difficult mission. yes, we need to resource them, but let's not forget the fact that the people who brought us to the dance, the failures of
the detection rate, are still in leadership positions. and what training did they get? again, we're deflecting the problem on the tsos, but we're not really talking about all the people in leadership positions who brought them to that dance. >> i thank the gentleman and yield to the gentleman from michigan. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thanks to the panelists for being here. mr. livingston, we've been here today talking about the failure at seemingly all levels, employee morale, training, et cetera, and the consistent terrible rankings that dhs has. what do you think it's going to take to instill a meaningful change in employee morale? >> leadership. accountable leadership that gets results, that's consistent and that is honest. right now there's no trust. >> accountable leadership, go back to that. what does that mean? >> well, right now the value on conformity and silence is greater than integrity and innovation.
if we don't have an agile agency that's more focused on the threat and making security the priority, you're not going to get an agency that's going to be agile. right now the agency is supposed to be working on the threat and right now we're more worried about conformity and silence. if you don't build trust with the work force, you're never going to make the morale better. >> so the results that we're talking about today aren't a surprise to you? >> not in the least bit, sir. >> mr. brainard, we've heard of senior positions being filled with unqualified staff, untrained staff, specifically individuals with little or no management or security experience. can you share your experience in this regard, specifically whether you know of any efforts on the agency to address this issue. >> let me give you another example and there are several. in 2013 an active shooter opened
fire at the los angeles airport, killed one of our officers, wounded two. wounded a total of seven people. in response to that, some of our senior leaders, these folks who have a questionable background and certainly lack the security experience necessary all got together and decided to standardize a check point panic alarm system. the purpose was to press it when there was an imminent threat so our people could have protection at the quickest possible opportunity. so of the 450 airports where they installed those, they installed those alarmt, that's great. a good security move. the problem is they're covert alarms. if you have a law enforcement officer standing there and you have a situation like you did in new orleans, if that officer hadn't been there to take the perpetrator out, several people would have been hurt or possibly killed that day. how do you install 710 alarm systems on a government contract and forget to put in an audible alarm? we installed an audible alarm in
wichita. when you're talking about the changes put into these airports, the rationale behind some of this stuff absolutely makes no sense from a security standpoint. risk-based security is a title that's slapped on everything. and the motto is from the previous administration there's never been a risk i wasn't willing to accept. it's like dealing with a financial investor. you give a financial investor $100,000 of your money and he or she will do things with it they would never do with their own. that's one example of the logic that goes in and the thought process that goes in. one of my counterparts took a survey over a period of five months with calls that we have with tsa leadership prior to mr. neffenger's arrival. there were 147 topics discussed, not one was security related. they may have talked about playbook or some security aspect but there was always a metric driving it and it was a running joke. this is the priority of that leadership. >> let me jump to another point
here. can you walk us through the process that tsa engages when they are evaluating a potential new hire. >> at which level, sir? >> at any level. a new hire in management level specifically but any other. what's the process that tsa walks through? >> it varies. with officers obviously there's an online process and locally we're not involved in that. we'll do candid assessments and so forth. there's a background check. i don't get a lot of insight of that. posting it on usa jobs. then you have within the ses level and those are done by the executive resource council at tsa headquarters. it varies with different components. >> mr. rhodes, complaints to leadership at tsa going unacknowledged, ignored, et cetera, have you ever heard justification for these complaints not being accepted or reviewed?
>> no, sir, there's no logical explanation for that. >> what explanations have been given? >> precisely, none. >> none at all? >> no contacts, no e-mails, i've got a differing opinion, that's a good idea, nothing. >> so it just happens, allowed to happen? >> i can't answer that. the only thing i can answer, sir, is i have not been contacted. >> thank you. i yield back. >> the gentleman from massachusetts. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the witnesses for your help on the committee with its work today. in my previous life i was a union steward and a union president and later on a labor lawyer practicing labor law on behalf of unions. i'm just curious, when i was a steward on the work site, when i had employees that were being treated unfairly, i would take it on myself. that would be my job. i would deal with management and make sure that people were being treated fairly.
that way, my workers weren't continually banging heads with management. it was me. i sort of enjoyed that work, but a lot of people don't. would it be helpful at all in your workplace if you had somebody like that that you could go to that would -- i know that afgee is the signatory in the workplace but you don't have full bargaining rights and all the rights that the other federal employees have. would that be helpful? >> sir, i'd like to answer that. i'd like to first answer this by saying my afg president from minnesota is here in attendance in support of this testimony. >> great. >> i think the fact that she is here supporting me talking about mismanagement in my agency is a powerful signal, hopefully, to my agency.
i'll start off by saying this. my afg president in minneapolis and i sat in my office. the management wanted to fire this person because he made a mistake. when i looked at the penalties, it was excessive. i did what's called a designated grievance official. i reversed it, eliminated it. we had a great conversation in my office. i owned the decision. like i said, as long as you have ethical leaders willing to do the right thing and not be coerced from the top, it could work, but it requires ethical leadership. >> i understand that. >> totally off topic, i grew up in brain tree, massachusetts. >> that's my district. >> yes, sir. >> you're still voting there, you know. >> i wish i could. >> we know how you'll vote anyway so we'll do that on your behalf. >> yes, sir. >> i don't want to spend a lot of time on that. just what do you think, mr. livingston?
>> sir, the most important thing about tsa is the people. the people and the mission. if you don't make the two match, tsa's never going to get better. we've got a great leader but it's getting lost in translation. >> look, i'm very happy to hear about mr. neffenger and he's been before this committee. he's a frequent flier here and he is trying to put in some of the changes that we need. i want to jump to something else though. we did talk with mr. neffenger about the -- look, check points are very important. if you google check point bombings or check point attacks, you look at what happened in brussels. you look at what happened at the airport check point, at the rail check point, suicide bombers detonating at both of those. look at paris outside the stadium where president hollande was watching the game between france and germany. those suicide bombers hit at the check point. so what goes on at that check point is incredibly important.
we got to have a whole different strategy for how we handle that because that's been the focal point of all these attacks. and i'm not calling out my tsa screeners, but as the ranking democrat on the national security subcommittee, i go to those classified briefings and i saw what the inspector general did, sending people through with ace bandages with knives in there or a gun strapped to their leg. i got to tell you, like 90% of those folks got through. 90% of them. these are major airports in our country. so i'm not looking to place the blame on any particular aspect of this, but that is unacceptable. so we got to work together. mr. neffenger has said he's going to go back and redesign this whole thing so that we'll do a better job at that. but i cannot not criticize when
we have a 90% failure rate. so that's got to change. we got a lot of turnover and i think some of that is related to the fact that we don't -- the way we treat our employees. this ought to be a profession. these folks are doing incredibly important work. people yell about protecting our borders. well, that screener at that airport, that is your border. we got to make sure that those employees have the protection and the rights to be able to do their job. one of the things i'm concerned about and this is what i want to ask you about. my concern from a national security standpoint is whether or not those passengers are screened efficiently. the airline priority is moving people through that check point and getting -- that's why you got these people being timed, your screeners being timed on how many people -- what's the wait time on getting these people through. anybody who travels and we all travel regularly, you got to get there a little earlier, you got
to adjust your schedule in case you do have an alert or something like that at the airport and we want our screeners to do a damn good job. so the priority has to be safety and security and what's going on at that check point. it can't be the airline needs to move product, needs to move people through that. so what do you think is winning out today between those two priorities? effective screening or moving passengers, that's the priority that's prevailing today in our nation's airports? >> sir, i don't speak for the agency but i can tell you that we're not going to compromise security for speed. i can tell you that we're going to balance it. tsa is not going to compromise our mission to expedite passengers through at the expense of our mission. what we're going to do is get better. we're going to keep pushing precheck, pushing a better process, and we're going to get
more people and we're going to get better at this. mr. neffenger has made it a priority. there's a day that doesn't go by at tsa where this isn't the priority. i can tell you that every single senior leader that he talks to at tsa, this is the topic of discussion. >> okay. >> i don't want you to think that it's not a priority. >> okay. but i got to go back to the original point i made earlier, he needs the right team to do it. >> sure. >> sir, if i can, i work in the field operation and i'm responsible for everything in the state of kansas. i was at maine last year, iowa ten years before that, indiana before that. there's a stereotype with the airlines that all they care about is customer service. that's not accurate. there are a lot of airlines and airports who partner with tsa every day. we are the only entity with the dhs that deals with three constants, departures, arrivals, connections. when we're not doing our zob,
they have a right to be upset. the problem right now is that the previous leadership team oversaw tsa put in a plan a without a plan b. that's reflective upon that leadership. i don't think there's a day that mr. neffenger doesn't come to work and he didn't get full disclosure when he took the appointment and god bless him for being here but he's out trying to cheer lead this. but that's why we're at where we're at. it's the lack of leadership that got us there. we did not have a plan b when we put in plan a. >> mr. chairman, thank you. >> let me turn to the gentleman from alabama, mr. palmer. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. rhodes, i believe you used to work alongside former acting head ken kassprizen. he has stated before that thousands of airport workers who
are only subject to random checks are the single greatest threat to aviation security. now tsa employees are regularly rooted out rummaging through baggage or inappropriate behavior. my concern is that there are only three u.s. airports that currently require employee checks. in atlanta they had a major gun running operation busted in 2014. we have reports that there's some 73 employees at about 40 airports who potentially have terrorist ties. at some point is the tsa causing more insecurity than it solves? frankly, as a very frequent traveler, it gives me some concern that the screening process may identify potential terrorists, yet they continue to work there. >> let me try to answer that question, sir.
i believe if the tsa was mandated to screen every employee at airports, it would require much more resources. i am unqualified to professionally comment on how much those resources would require, but what i can say is that the minneapolis/st. paul airport, there are i believe over 10,000 people that work at that airport. obviously some of them come during various times of the day and various shifts, and certainly the insider threat has received a new focus based upon world events. but i will say we are resourced in fte. i'm unqualified to comment whether we should also receive resources in that but i can say that's not our specific focus. >> let me put it this way. obviously we're talking about basic screening, right? >> yes, sir. >> every staff member that works
here goes through screening to get into an office here, and in terms of being able to do their job, if you know you have to go through a screening process, you show up early. is that unreasonable? >> no, that's not unreasonable, sir. i think what our administrator has done rightfully so is reducing some of those access points at those airports. if you're aside of side badges and various access points, those are available to some employees. however, again, i don't have any data to suggest -- or talk intelligently with respect to how many access points. at minneapolis the number of access points have been reduced and we continue to reduce them. >> think about it for a moment, if we know there's the tsa thinks there's 73 potential employees potentially with terrorist ties, that's who they've identified that there
might be potentially others and that we're not screening them, it doesn't give you a high comfort level. >> i don't disagree with you, sir. >> mr. brainard, i'd like to follow up on mr. duncan's questions regarding wasteful spending. you described expenditures such as $300,000 on an absentee director. a $12 million budget that's three times its original amount. i could amount ask for a hearing on project overruns. $336,000 on an app that you, mr. brainard, described being as effective as a ouija board. i'm sure the more we continue to hear from other employees at different airports we're going to continue to hear similar stories to that effect. you might be aware that last april the tsa aviation security advisory committee released a report concluding that they
could not afford full employee screening and it would not reduce insider threats. do you believe this illustrates where the priorities lie when you look at this other spending? >> thank you for the question, sir. when it comes to spending, another example to give you where they could have put the money into making -- toward making something like that happen. when they did the directed reassignments i went from iowa to maine. i had received near perfect evaluation. there was no vacancy in maine. the federal security director m maine received a perfect evaluation. he was sent to wisconsin. between the two of us you're talking in excess of a quarter million dollars that was earmarked for those directors. all of these federal security directors were performing in excessive standards. no federal security director had more experience, the main operation was smaller and less complex than i had. the fsd in arkansas, north
carolina, los angeles. his spouse from los angeles to washington d.c. there was no reason for these moves. i don't know what the price tag is on all those moves, but we could have certainly used that funding more appropriately. >> well, and that just brings me back to the point i was trying to make with mr. rhodes. you're spending all this money and we know that not every tsa employee is up to standard. potentially 73 may have terrorist ties. but we're spending all this money and we're not investing in the security apparatus that we need to make sure absolutely positively certain that we have the very best people on the job and that we're protecting our airports. i saw you shaking your head, dr. livingston. i presume you may have a comment. >> sir, full disclosure, just like my partner to the left, we're from the same area as well.
>> i'm from hackleburg, alabama and i live in hoover. by the way, today is the five-year anniversary of the tornados that went through alabama with such devastating impact. >> wow, okay. >> thank the gentleman. did you want to finish your response? >> yes, sir. to answer your question, there needs to be greater oversights. i was part of the office that identified that original 73. we didn't have access to the list. i was actually part of the team that decided we needed to notify ntct to say we didn't have access to that database. i've been part of the team that identified we need to do a better job at screening. so there is an opportunity to do better screening and for tsa to do better monetary discipline. i identified the $10 million excess spent on a watch floor. so yes, sir, there is an opportunity to be more prudent
with the taxpayers' money. any time you see an example of waste, fraud, and abuse, we've got to do better. >> i thank the chairman. i yield back. >> thank the gentleman. the gentleman from missouri, mr. clay. >> thank you, mr. chair. mr. livingston, tsa cut its screening staff over the past couple of years, anticipating that its precheck program would help speed up the overall process, but not enough passengers have enrolled. news reports have indicated that morale inside the tsa is extremely low which is likely a factor contributing to staffing shortages affecting tsa security. reports indicate that travelers are arriving at security check points where not all available queues are open for general screening. i can attest to that going through st. louis's airport.
i'm part of the precheck program but more often than not it's closed. i'm told by officers that they don't have enough people to staff it. is there a long-term strategy to fix the morale issue and the employment issue? >> yes, sir. there is a plan. i know that the administrator has touted the fact that we're putting 200 extra tso officers through the academy each week. both of my counterparts can speak to the screening process. from the precheck standpoint i know that we're putting more advertising out to get more people enrolled. we're trying to get more people into the program, trying to show them the advantages of that. precheck is a high priority for the agency and we're trying to get more people into that. once we do that, the more people that are in precheck, we can
sustain that much better. i'll let my counterpart -- >> here's the point. the excuse i get at st. louis airport is we don't have enough officers to staff it. so is that just something they're telling me? >> sir, there is a staffing issue. i know the administrator has talked to omb about staffing issues. i know that there is a long-term strategy to address that issue. it's a resource issue of both money and people. it's going to take some time but we have addressed that. there's a short, mid-term and a long term plan. he's working with the senior staff to do that and i think both of these gentlemen who are working in the airport can tell you what they're doing daily. >> some have suggested shifting officers from tsa's controversial behavior detection program to regular screeners. so let me go on.
mr. rhodes, i have a question for you. kind of concerned about an article i'm reading about a mohammed fa ra from minneapolis. are you familiar with him? >> yes. >> here's what he says. there's an ongoing program of racial profiling and harassment by tsa agents at the twin cities airport. he said recently he was asked by an agent who said, quote, hey, were you going to make a run for it if i hadn't given your ticket back? and the response he's gotten from tsa and the congressman from that area, mr. ellison, is that they take these complaints seriously.
i think it's a little bit more than that. he's also been given a tsa control number from the agency's redress program, and he said it doesn't help either. so what can we do for mr. fara that would change the conditions that he experiences every time he goes through your airport? >> thank you for that question, sir. you may not realize but there's a "new york times" article that was published this morning about profiling. you may know that in my opening statement i was asked to profile somali imams and community members visiting me in my office. those are facts. it's contained in my mid year evaluation that i provided to this committee. mohammed fara is the director of kajug. i was not at the check point during that time so i can't
intelligently speak to what was or was not said. what i can say is whether you're black, white, male, female, somali, jew, christian, hindu, we should treat you the same. it doesn't matter if you're flying on whatever airlines, you should be treated with respect. again, i'm not either taking mohammed's position or refuting his position in so much as i'd say that when we get to know people of the somali community, they're hard working. they want to be american citizens. my mother was an immigrant, was a japanese national, became a u.s. citizen and took her oath of citizenship in boston, massachusetts. >> how are you going to change mr. fara's experience when he encounters your agent, your officers?
>> the best way i can answer that, sir, is like any investigation or inquiry, you get the facts. i have met mohammed fara many times. we can at times have what's called a passenger support specialist, have someone assigned to him in the future when he flies out to make sure things like that don't happen. we're happy to do that. >> have you disciplined the officers that he has encountered? >> i don't know the names of the officers. i'm unqualified to speak to that. i don't have that information with me. >> your camera footage can identify them. you have identified these officers? >> again, sir, i don't have those facts. what i am suggesting is in my own experience with respect to the tsa, they've been less than forthcoming in addressing my complaints. so i would say that my complaints mirror mohammed fara's. >> this is totally unacceptable.
>> has somebody from tsa gotten back to you with these questions? >> no. i'm reading this today and realizing this guy is being mistreated. >> would you like somebody from -- >> sure, i certainly would. >> i'll take that and get back to you with somebody from tsa. >> let me recognize the gentleman from georgia, mr. carter, now. >> thank you mr. chairman. thanks to all of you for being here. we appreciate your presence here today. i want to start with you, mr. brainard, if that's okay. as i understand it, at one point you were assigned in iowa, is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> while you were there in iowa you received the highest performance rating that you could possibly receive while you were working there? >> yes, sir. >> and also i believe that you received a federal security director of the year award. >> yes, sir. i received the federal security director of the year, the secretary team award and one of
the two top awards you can receive in our agency and a number of other types of awards from local stakeholders, partner centers, things like that. >> then as i understand it, they tried to reassign you to maine? >> yes, sir. >> they tried to reassign you to maine? >> they did reassign me to maine. >> after you received all these accolades and awards? >> yes, sir. >> do you believe that that was their way of trying to get rid of you to reassign your position? >> i can't speak to their motives. it would be unfair for me to speak to their motives. i'll speak to facts. >> was it a bigger airport? were you needed there? >> no, sir. smaller airport, less complex. fewer employees. >> why would an agency take one of their best employees -- they wouldn't have given you these awards if they didn't think you were doing a good job and put you at a smaller airport where you would not be as useful?
>> according to them the reason was because my skill set was needed for that particular operation. unfortunately, there was another federal security director who had the same length of service in that i did and who had been a high performer. that's the reason they provided each of the federal security directors who happened to be the longest serving federal security directors in tsa. there was a caveat, there were at least three federal security directors i was aware of that they did not move but they had to sign a agreement to stay at their duty station one year and they would retire and forfeited their right to take any litigation against the agency. three people were provided an exemption with the caveat that they had to require. -- retire. there was an announcement which reminded everybody that putting pressure or coercion on employees to retire is prohibited. >> let me ask you -- you did relocate to maine? >> yes, sir. >> when you relocated to maine, was that a financial hardship on
you? >> oh, yes. >> and your family? >> yes, sir. >> was there a vacancy near where you were before? >> no. there was no vacancy. there was in maine a sitting federal security director, no vacancy. if there had been a vacancy there were certainly other people there at the operation qualified to fill these positions. it's important to note that when you're moving this particular skill set around the country, we have some 750 assistant federal security directors and deputy federal security directors. the men and women that fill those positions, most of them are more than qualified. >> how much would it have cost tsa to relocate you to portland, maine? >> they earmarked on the pcs in excess of $100,000. >> i've got in my notes $113,000. >> that would be accurate. >> is this happening elsewhere? mr. rhodes?
>> it happens everywhere. as you may read in my written testimony, i'd like to call the example of mark haut. this was a gentleman who was moved from charlotte to los angeles. when he moved from virginia over to charlotte, the agency paid him $197,000 for one move. during that time, two of his sisters and his brothers died. his wife, after he got a directed reassignment to los angeles was given a directed reassignment in los angeles back to washington d.c. on the opposite end of the united states. that's the punitive nature of directed reassignments and the high cost. >> let me make sure i'm understanding this now. so this is taxpayers' money that we're paying this? >> yes, sir. >> we could be talking about millions of dollars in taxpayers' money. >> you are talking about millions of dollars. >> but it also causes the
employee financial hardship. >> when they moved me to iowa, my counterpart in jacksonville couldn't come. he was off on medical. you know what they did? they tdy'd, put him in a hotel for nine months, nine months. they put her in that hotel for nine months, and they didn't fill that position until january of 2015. >> sir, ed goodwin from florida, he was given a directed reassignment. he was supposed to replace jay brainard in des moines. his parents were 89 and i believe 95 years old. one of them had alzheimer's. his daughter was a high school senior in her last year of high school, and he was under water in his mortgage. they gave him a directed reassignment. what he did, he quit. he resigned. and that's -- the "new york times" wrote about him as well.
that's what our agency does to people they want to run out. >> we've got a number of moving parts here. we've got what i consider to be wasting taxpayers' money and i'm very concerned about -- we've got another concern about whether this is intentional and in a way to get rid of employees or discipline employees. mr. chairman, i just have to tell you, i'm pretty disgusted right now and i'm looking forward to us having another hearing. from what i understand, we're going to be doing that. certainly we want to get to the bottom of this. mr. chairman, i'll yield back. thank y'all again for being here. >> thank the gentleman. i'll recognize the delegate from the district, ms. norton. >> thank you, mr. chairman. could i say to all three of you that we very much appreciate your service and appreciate your courage in coming forward. i share the equal employment -- i chair the equal employment
opportunity commission and i'm very interested in this kind of alleged retaliation. it's interesting that when congress passed title seven itself it passed a retaliation provision in the statute. it's very, very important, and of course if there isn't any sense that one cannot be punished for coming forward, there's a very, very heavy presumption against coming forward. i was very interested in hearing that. i don't remember, even though i had to essentially reform the entire agency, creating new parts of the agency, bringing together people -- i don't remember anything called directed reassignments. in my view, i can think of no
more powerful instrument in the hands of an agency. you testified, i think it was u mr. rhodes that somebody just quit. and if that was the intention, it certainly worked. mr. livingston, let me start with you because you reported that you indeed did suffer discrimination at tsa is that right? >> yes. >> what was the basis for the discrimination? >> it started with the disability harassment and then it was based on my veteran status they were making fun of me for my service connected disabilities. then it started as the management directed official on a case where he -- i found against senior scs for selection
and another asked me to lie and i refused. and then there was another case where i reported serious security violations and it started -- that same official testified against me in my erc or my probationary period. >> this seems like one thing leads to another. >> if you tell the truth in tsa, you will be targeted. i call it the lord of the flies, you either attack or be attacked. >> ma'am, if i may -- >> yes. >> i was accused of going native. >> going what? >> going native. >> you'll have to explain that. >> it's a slang term where i was visiting mosques in my official role with the community where jeh johnson tells me he wants to conduct community outreach and my supervisor accused me of going native. i take that to mean i'm somehow
converting to islam and acting as a native. it's a disgusting bigoted term. and when i think of that within the context of the written evaluation that tells me to profile somali people i'm disgusted by it. going native? i'm truly disgusted by it. >> this committee has -- and the house unanimously passed a bill called the federal employee anti-discrimination in the past to help hold managers accountable. the kinds of retaliation what happened below your level is perhaps apparently better taken care of. as original co-sponsor, it looks like most of the committee was.
i'm -- this is -- this bill by the way is pending in the senate. it hasn't passed the senate yet but it would require the agencies to keep track of every single complaint. somehow for the string of issues mr. livingston, for example, you indicated there would have to be a tracking of the complaint through inception and resolution. do you think this would help bring additional level, mr. livingston, i'll start with you, to the process? >> i think any time there's checks and balances, you track that, i think that's always a good thing. >> see if something funny is going on here. with the string of -- you see the string of -- >> yes, ma'am. >> i think tsa has a management
protocol problem. i think if you can track and show the process and i know that the committee has looked at it for years. i think if you can show that, because all of these leaders are not bad. some are very good. exceptional. i can name several. but all it takes is somebody to circumvent that process and you've ruined the good work of many. if you track that and you quantify it, and you can show the progress of the well intended, i think everybody benefits. if you have toxic cancerous leaders that are injected into this process, it undoes all of the good work that the well intended leaders do. and that's why mr. nefinger needs a team around him that can do that. this process you're talking about, this tracking and mechanism, the numbers and the data doesn't lie. it's forever. once you put it into the record and track it, it's consistent over time. and that's what we need is
consistent persistent quality leadership. factual data will make us better. >> they gave me something of what you said to staff indicating that these nondisclosure agreements stand in the way. i notice -- and of course i'd like to know whether you think our bill that says that you can't restrict the employee from disclosing -- waste fraud or abuse to the congress special counsel or inspector general, whether that reaches far enough. >> i think we overuse the nondisclosure agreements in my agency. i think every legal case we have ends in one and i think that's an abuse of the power that we have. i did write a statement to that. i will look for it quickly and read it to you. every case from a misconduct to an eel case ends in an nda.
that hides the potential to make us better and at worst shows our problems and at least shows a cover-up. every case can't be an nda. we should have public disclosure and show the public what we're doing. if we're hiding it, we're hiding something. >> we'll recognize the gentleman from south carolina. >> i thank the chairman and wish mr. lynch had stuck around for a few minutes because he said something i thought mr. brain ard handled it well. mr. lynch mentioned at the end that the airlines were just interested in moving product and moving people through the room and you handled that extraordinarily well. that's unfair. i know some who fly and their families fly and they care just as much as about safety as we do. it's inaccurate to say that the airlines only care about moving product as it would be to say all you care about is safety and
don't care about how long folks have to stand in line. i look forward to a longer conversation about mr. lynch, who cares less about people, my guess is they are tied. i want to talk a little bit about the way the employees are treated and i have to ask, is anybody familiar with the circumstance that happened at charlston, south carolina, with kimberly barn et? >> no sir. >> just an example. she complained about her supervisor falsifying records in her area, her area dealt with at k-9 use, the dog. she went to the osc, which is where she was supposed to go and made the complaint in june of 2014 and by november of 2014 she was fired. she was fired over a completely different allegation regarding using inappropriate language when her car got struck by a bus. so i wanted to mention her because it's more than just you
gentleman, but i think everybody from every one of the districts could bring these stories in. let's talk about how to fix it. mr. livingston, you hit the nail on the head, you're exact language was accountable leadership, which i agree with. >> can you name a federal agency that has that? >> i used to work at the nuclear regulatory association. i thought they had great leerdship and department of navy. >> they may have and maybe it's a function of what we do in this committee but since we see the bad stuff all the time, we can tell you again and again we can bring in examples of leadership breaking down and leadership not being accountable and folks not being able to fire people and you can have a hearing every single day. and you've mentioned one of the challenges that the agency faces is personnel and then i think you said it was staffing and money. i feel it's incumbent upon me we haven't cut your budgets.
they have been fairly flat for the last couple of years. when you tell me every day this summer is going to be like the day after thanksgiving is, why is that? it can't just be money. we haven't changed the money that much. >> we are in a perpetual human resource model where we're always recruiting and losing people. we don't have a sustainable model where we recruit and maintain the best workforce. if you don't sustain top quality people, then you're not going to get the best workforce. if we're always recruiting because we're always losing, you're not going to get the best people. if you don't take care of the people you hired, they are not going to stay. if you don't take care of the people you hired and get them in a career development leadership program and take your best people and groom them for bigger, better positions and send them to the top level schools and don't invest in them and make people feel important and don't make people feel like you care about them, they are not going to stay no matter where they are.
>> i tend to degragree with tha wholeheartedly. anyone here that had to run an organization, private or public probably agrees with that. >> if people think you care about them, they'll take a bullet for you. >> i absolutely agree. it leads me to my real question here. why are we doing this? you've just described the same challenge a private entity has in running the operation and same frustrations we have it so many bureaucracies, the stories you've told about whistleblowers getting fired and not being able to deal with malperforming employees and unaccountable leadership, we hear that every single day from every agency we bring in. my question is, why are we doing this? why wouldn't it be better to let private services serve this function. can you defend the agency as to why the federal government needs to be doing this? it strike me if you all were
contractors because we've had contractors come in here before and there's always the threat, we just fire them, don't renew the contract, don't have that with the tsa. i guess i ask you to defend the federal role here. why are we doing this as a federal government as opposed to letting the private sector serve this need? >> i'd like to take a stab at that. i think one of the essential elements of government is to protect its people. that's why you have a standing army. i grew up as an army ranger, lives and breathes, a leader is responsible for his or her unit. he or she is responsible for everything that unit does or fails to do. when there are failures there must be consequences to those failures. we don't have consequences to our failures in tsa. if this were to happen in the military, entire people in the chain of command would have been relieved -- >> if a private sector company came to us with a 90% failure right we would fire them and
replace them with someone else. >> absolutely, yes, sir. >> i'm just suggesting whether it's private or we're title 5 or stay under -- in my view is irrelevant. it requires the most essential agreement in a private company and i work for kraft foods in marketing and that's leadership. i know it's the intangibles but that's why we're all here. there's failures in leadership. failures of accountability and failures of performance. there's been nothing done. and that's why we're here. >> i'm over time and i don't want to take away -- that is embodied in an experience in this committee every day. thank you, sir. >> mr. grojman, you're recognized. >> we'll start with mr. livingston, on the sheet they call you doctor livingston, sorry about that. are you aware of examples from
the agency, giving you specific examples. >> i know the morale survey used against me was tainted and oi investigation used against the nfsd in miami was used as an instrument thwart a complaint. i know those are two examples. >> what do you do that you get yourself in trouble and they go after you? >> any time you go against the grain or report misconductor tell on certain favorite people and anything that goes against the favorite people. if you report misconduct and if you report sexual harassment and security violations and do anything against the top tier or anything of that nature, it just seems to go against the grain. you identify yourself as a nonplayer. if you don't shut up, you don't move up. >> okay, so in other words
mentality is not to do the best job they can at what tsa should be doing, they need to establish kind of respect for the people at the top. >> yes, sir. i come from a dod background where everything is a learning opportunity. we do a hot watch after an exercise or incident or crisis. we always learn from that mistake. everything is integrity based. if you don't say something, you're considered a weak leader. i think in tsa, if you say something you're reported an outsider. when i reported sexual harassment, another said if she files a complaint, it's our word against hers. i'm not going to lie. if you don't, we can't work with you and if you're going to be a boy scout, you'll be on my blank list. i was on the outside from the get-go. i was stunned that another scs would ask me to lie. when i didn't, i was an outcast. >> because you saw something happening and were going to
report it? >> absolutely and i did. >> we'll give mr. brainard and mr. rhodes a question. could one of you give a background kind of how integrity tests are conducted at the airports? i can give you insight. integrity testing in tsa went into high gear shortly after media story about ipads were taking place. and tsa office of inspection, internal affairs will come out and run test items through cash cards, money, dvds, and things like that. so the testing they'll come through with these items and federal security director will get a call and we will be notified of the outcome. generally speaking they'll say we came through with xy and z and can you recover them for us. i'll give you an example, which i think that you certainly will appreciate. one of the items that they are
notorious for planting in an airport are pens. they'll throw a pen on the floor and tso picks it up and doesn't turn it in. they'll fly back out a couple of investigators and literally interrogate them and push for a resignation or propose removal for theft, for a pen. and i know this because they've done it in my airports and know this because they've joked about the fact it's the most successful test they have. there was a tso at an airport in the midwest when he picked up the pen threw it in the garbage because he didn't put any intrinsic value on the pen, it's a $200 pen. in my operation, i happen to be one of the worst offenders of picking up pens people are using. but the irony in all of this, when you're talking about testing, you hold the people in the field to the highest standard, the people in headquarters to the lowest standard. we have people picking up pens and they are sending out
criminal investigators for noncriminal matters. it's common place to come out and threaten people with criminal prosecution. as a matter of fact, they'll take a noncriminal case to a local prosecutor as part of the tso fairness act to say they are spending 50% of their time on criminal investigation so they can check that box. they take and hold the field to a much different standard of accountability. they are doing people for pens while you've got people at headquarters abusing staff members. >> in other words, just kind of for kicks they put a stupid plastic pen on the ground if somebody -- >> it's a mont blanc pen, i can go to cvs and i couldn't tell the difference between that and $700 pen. i've never in 13 years see a passenger turn a pen into lost and found at the airport. it may have happened at some point. >> you think when they do these
tests, do they target individual employees or airports? >> i believe the tests -- i've never seen an indication the tests are conducted for a general reason. >> a waste of time. >> i think the integrity testing is absolutely essential. one of the things -- i know you know this. the only people that hate to see thefts in the workplace more than the american public are our own employees, we don't want them working for us any more than the public does. >> thanks for the extra time. >> let me yield to miss norton -- let me yield to mr. cummings and he's going to yield to ms. norton. >> i'll be very brief. i'll have to go to another meeting, but i wanted to thank you all for being here. you've provided some very significant testimony. we need as i said earlier, we need to see the entire picture but we certainly cannot have a
situation where whistle blowers even worry about retaliation, let alone be the victims of it. i think you'll get that concern from both sides of the aisle. and so again, i want to thank you all. we've got -- we've got to find a way to cut out that layer that you're talking about, those people who seem to want to things to go on the way they've been going on and way they've been going on is not healthy. and it takes away from the morale of the agency and it takes away from its effectiveness and efficiency. this whole idea -- i know ms. norton will explore this. but this whole idea of people
being sent from one part of the country to another, if that's about retaliation, i'll tell you something, to me that's criminal. >> i agree. >> really, because families are so important and individual who those families who have to go through that hell, your wife is on one end and husband on the other. life it short. anyway, i'll yield to ms. norton. thank you. >> yes, sir. >> i thank the ranking member for those comments. i want to make sure i understand the difference between the legitimate use of a tool for management and its abuse. i asked you before about directed reassignment and i can see how it opens itself hugely for abuse and it's interesting, we passed a bill but it looks like internally the agency has begun to take some action because it became apparently so
open. and such a problem within the agency, i want to ask specifically about the directed reassignment. here's a legitimate tool. i just want to know if it's been misused because we see this tool all across the government. and this is the capacity of the agency to ask the -- the employee to move every four years. we see that and state department, we see it in the services of the united states. i'm sure i see it because i see very often a different person from the national park service. but i note that a former -- i think it is a former administrator of tsa suspended the tour of duty initiative whereby the fsds would be
moved -- forgive me, would be moved every four years. why would he do that? >> if i can take that -- you're speaking of mr. mel careaway, he was the administrator for about a minute between transitions. he not only saw the detrimental effect it had on the culture of our workforce and also been subjected to it himself. he walked that mile. mel is a good man. and mel suspended that practice and when mr. neffinger came in during t during leadership summit, reaffirmed to hold what mr. caraway had done. i'm not sure if they tried to do it since mr. caraway put a freeze on it because sometimes there are things that go on and don't find out about until the bell has been rung. mr. caraway did freeze the process and anybody would. when you sit down and look at the information, it is crystal clear. it's blatant and obvious -- >> it was a problem in that
agency. i indicated that tsa is not unusual in having this this tour of duty -- >> it actually is. last year when i hired in as federal security director right after 9/11, i did not sign the mobility agreement. >> what kind of agreement? >> mobility agreement. >> mobility agreement? you don't have to sign. >> i do not. tsa office of law enforcement assigns a mobility agreement. the senior leadership, you sign if you want to be a candidate. they established a mobility process with the federal security directors and started moving them around. they didn't have a business reason to do it regardless of what was put in there. certainly able to articulate that. >> mr. rhodes. >> mr. brainard talked how melcaraway's initiative, that happened in 2014.
i received mine february 19th. >> it's different than tour of duty. >> you're calling it the same thing. directed reassignment. on the night of february 19th, 2015. my former federal security director ken called mel caraway on his cell phone. i was in his house. i heard every word mel caraway said. rhoades shouldn't have gotten that, i suspended that action. that did not go through executive resource council. it goes back to the point i want to reinforce. we can have all of the policies written down, but if we're going to ignore them or work around them or lie about them, it's ineffective. >> so you can call it a tour of duty reassignment, you can call it a directed reassignment, i'm pleased that my friends and colleagues on the other side have the same view about the
kind of minimal protections even at your level, that civil servants have. i'm so pleased we passed a bill ourselves just waiting for the senate, you know, it didn't take a bill to do something about this. i noted that on march 24th of this year, apparently the president administrator, a detailed explanation versus any other options -- any other options seems to me is important for this employee and/or the new position. does that help the situation? >> i think -- this is a question of using policy in such a way that you can push an agenda that's not healthy for the organization. there would be legitimate reason
why you might do a directed reassignment. you may have somebody not performing well or hired the wrong person for the position. somebody abusive to the workforce, you may not be able to terminate somebody, but you are prepared to sit down and have an options meeting and say, look, we need to talk about the road ahead. you being at this location will not work. there are circumstances where you would do a directed reassignment and there's legitimacy to that. this goes back to do you have a policy in place that governs this and if there is, are people manipulating the policy? i'll tell you a comment i heard and i'll say it in the hearing because there are 200 witnesses to it. when they were talking about ethics and accountability and said to take action, and let him file a lawsuit, i've got 300 attorneys and i'll take them up forever in court. that's the mentality that these people have. they feel that their bank rolled by the federal government to make these decisions. they don't care if you're going to file and contact the oig,
it's difficult to get the oig or osc to accept a complaint. there needs to be legitimacy with this. that's where these types of moves are absent. >> when they ended my probation air, they said don't worry about it, let them file a complaint. >> i appreciate your indulgence, our committee moved unanimously and house moved unanimously on this, the nuances are quite different. this is where the agency itself with this detailed explanation, if you really hold people accountable, you know, let's put it in writing. of why the employee must be reassigned, i particularly like the part, let's look what the options are. instead of uprooting you, let's see what the options are. there may be no option -- i must say mr. brainard, i appreciated your explanation because you seem to understand that there are some reasons for these
policies and that what we're here discussing are not the reasons that are used across the government but the abuse of these party -- of these policies in tsa in particular. i thank you very much for your testimony. >> thank the gentlelady. i want to conclude and i thank all members for their participation. particularly grateful for you all coming forward. as i said earlier, you confirm our worst suspicions what we have heard is going on and it takes brave people to come forward especially from an agency that is renowned for retaliation has grown renowned for gagging its employees and those who step forward and have reported some of the problems, are paying some pretty high penalties. it's abusive to you, it's abusive to the system.
i was one of the people who created tsa way back after 9/11 as the chair of the aviation subcommittee. president wanted on his desk by thanksgiving and we did that. we tried to structure something that would replace what we had. first of all, i think there should be a federal responsibility and all of you agree to that. we changed from having the airlines and the private sector just do -- there weren't federal guidelines in place and they failed to put them in place. so i think that's important. i've never said do away with it. i've said change the rule. the most shocking testimony or thing i heard today was there's the abuses and what they've done to you all is uncalled for, horrible. but one of you -- was it mr. -- mr. livington talked about the
intel analysis capability. that really scares me. the most important responsibility of that agency is to connect the dots, the intel and analysis is all that's going to save us. in my opinion. i will probably call -- i'm going to ask the administrator to take action to revamp that activity. that is the most important government responsibility. the intelligence gathering and information, all of the stuff we need to keep people from doing damage to us, when you come and testify to me and you're familiar with it, that that's one of our weak spots is is that correct again? >> yes, sir. >> that to me is absolutely scary. put this system together, tried to help tsa when it failed. we did everything in washington,
that was a disaster. we have tried to -- we have tried to localize some of the hi hiring and other activities. it's so big, they can't think out of the box and you have people who you identify today in control, you going to have the administrator but other people in control who are revengeful and who have taken actions that are just unacceptable. i can see replacing if there's a vacancy and you have to move somebody to fill that vacancy and we've got to secure that important fsd position, so be it. and if there's compensation needed to move that person, but what you've described is just an abusive authority today and then the cost is, you said 197,000 on one of them.
it's unbelievable. so the intel bothers me. i'll be writing nefinger, he's coming in. we have to get that piece of the puzzle there. i don't care who you put there, private screeners, public screener, whatever it is, things will get through. okay? the system is human beings. but when you fail -- if we spend some of that money and looking at people who pose a risk, whether -- even xraening people working behind the scenes, we had a hearing on that. there are hundreds of people -- they don't even have a passport number or have social security numbers for folks, not all tsa folks but even with tsa they haven't screened some of those people. the miami and orlando and there's one more airport where they are screening the workers, that's a waste of money.
that's not the way you do it. they check them and they can go through as you know. and once they are into the secure area, they have hammers and they have knives and all kinds of things that are not allowed and that have chemicals and everything else plus they have access to the aircraft which can -- they can do a lot of damage to. we waste money, that's congressionally impose some of that where it could be better spent. would you agree with is that? >> yes, sir. >> absolutely. >> let me say one thing too. i'm glad that some of the union folks came. i'm a republican. when i wrote the bill, i made certain that the tsa and tsos had the ability to belong to a union. i strongly believe in that right of every american worker. i don't think anyone should be forced to join a union on the other hand. but we put that in the
provision. the -- of the five private screening under federal supervision operations that we set up, san francisco was private, has been union from the beginning, long before the rest of the crowd got that. so it's not a question union representation and i don't think people should fear public versus private, even tsa folks. i know some of them fear that. but it does involve some competition. i heard you all speak to that and mr. lynch isn't here but again, we need to protect that right. we exempted them from title 5 and some can get fired because that's the way we set it up. it sounds like some of the wrong people are getting removed and the money is going to the wrong folks. in the private screening they've increased some of the compensations for the tso to retain better people and be more flexible in scheduling and
things like that that could be adapted. that's one reason i favored that model under federal supervision. what you describe today is very scary. i cited a history of what's been going on with the delays but for you to come here, you said mr. livingston, mr. brainard, there was no plan b and we expect a meltdown this summer. is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> yes, sir. >> yes. >> mr. rhoades? >> if i can say something with that. >> go ahead. >> federal security directors are working with their staff and working with the airports and airlines. we have faced tougher challenges in our history standing up as you well know one of the founders of our agency, i'm confident we'll be able to find workable solutions as long as we're keeping partnership with stake holders. >> you have a lot of good workers out there who should be rewarded. we need a better way of
rewarding and retain gs the good tso workers. get rid of some of the bureaucrats at the top who are causing most of the problems. and they've -- i guess over the years they felt threatened, particularly by me because i keep saying my goodness, we have a huge bureaucracy, many of them a few miles from here. and they are very domestic nearing over the domestic emocr. i dealt with them in privatizing one of my airports, i've always left that option open. one of my local airports requested to opt out and then they came down and he told me never been so intimidated. so so threatened, it took two years to get us to get consideration of the opt out and then i had to change the law
to -- where they must accept the application rather than what we set it up it was left per missive with the language shell. that's the reason we got into that situation. then it took two years more while they thwarted our congress's intent. and again, we have 450 airports, we need different models, alaska is different from wyoming is different from jfc, et cetera. and the flexibility to do that. with the right balance of public/private operations and -- i would never take the federal government out and again -- a lot of junior members here. no one understands the significance of what you confirmed today on this intel analysis situation. that is the only thing i think
that will save us. maybe you have a different opinion. >> i want to go on the record, while you don't have intel leadership, you have top quality intel professionals working in the office. the advanced anl itic people is effective and he's getting great intel support from them. but with the right intel leadership, it will continue to function even better. >> well, i would put the resources there, bdos have been -- we've suggested hasn't worked out well, as you know and the other thing too, you have these lines that extend out from the airports. we saw what happened in brussels, it was an attack on the american airlines in the passengers, their intent was to kill as many as they can. you cited the attack in los angeles. they are looking for the easiest targets, tsa provides a layer of protection once they get past
that and then we have secure cockpit doors and we've got air marshalls and we've got pilots who are armed. the biggest thing we have and they've always come to the rescue since the hour on 9/11, when the passengers on flight 93 found out what was going on, the passengers will beat the living hell out of anyone who poses a true risk. so they have saved the day and also the airline staff, i have to give them credit to -- they have been there too. so again, my concern we built this huge bureaucracy and we have these bureaucrats in charge. they will have their revengeful way of controlling the agency, which it shouldn't be, so glad to hear the confidence everybody has in neffinger, i'm not happy to hear there's no plan b. that is essential.
and we've got to make certain -- we cast a lot of responsibility for the fsds in making it work and they are going to catch holy heck when the lines continue to back up. but some common sense things, the prechecked advancing that, i've gone to national. i will say it's improved because i've thrown a couple of fits. but more people in pre-check than there are in other lines and nobody moves them to accommodate people. i saw the dogs the other day, and they are using the dogs and people in line to get into tsa. i think we need to move a few dogs to the front doorway like the israelis do. they are checking people as they come in whether they can get to the line to take out the people like they did in brussels. just some suggestions, again, that common sense that i hope you all can take back.
i know you've tried to make positive suggestions and been -- and also, i don't think any of you did it to be mean or vengeful to anybody above, but you have the best interest of the public and those who work for us. not as many questions as comments. very helpful hearing, we'll have the administrator in in a couple of weeks here. any last remarks? >> one of the things they talked about and i guess because this committee certainly has some level of influence, when you talk about our workforce and the wonderful people that come to work every day, if i can just kind of pose it like this. imagine if every year you had to run for re-election, you would almost never -- >> i do it every two. >> imagine doing it every year. >> my contract expires every 24 months. >> with our people it expires every year and thach got to
recertify for their job. i would hope in looking forward one of the things we could certainly do better with our people is find another option. our people get incredibly stressed out. they do their job very well. what you don't hear about in the media a lot of times are the success stories that do happen every day. the amount of dangerous items that are prevented to get on aircraft. i know our people in some cases could certainly find other opportunities, we're grateful to have the wonderful team we do. if there's a way to take the stress off the workforce, we would appreciate it. >> well, again, it starts from up here and you all shall the fsd work at certain constraints from what comes from -- flows downhill as the saying goes. mr. livingston? >> sir, we have brought up very serious issues here today, some were new, some were reported back in the original summary that went to you in october of
2009. if we can agree that some of these need to be addressed now -- >> absolutely. >> and supported by the administrator, this is a prime opportunity to advance the operational success of tsa. none of the things said here were personal or -- >> no, you're -- speaking in the betterment of tsa. >> and the last two points, sir, if we could take a look at how the erc or executive resource council appoints the scs's at tsa, that may be a way for you to exert your most control over tsa. that's where the pay and assignments and selections and reassignment, that's the nukally us for everything. and i'm not sure that it isn't effective in the best interest. i heard you speak several times both here and on the committees and to the administrator in
several things you said over and over, but i haven't seen the actual actions that you've -- >> you can't imagine my frustration and sometimes they've ignored me and tried to do everything they can to divert, to -- >> yes, sir. >> but i think if you exerted control -- >> i think again, you saw sort of bipartisan support. again, i've never since we created tsa, never seen anyone come forward. most people have been afraid to come forward. i remember we offered some people. they even put bags over their heads like we've done in the past with witnesses to come in and testify. but you all are very brave. you've stood up to it and i think you do it again because you're trying not to be mean towards anyone or vin diktive toward anyone but to better the operations which you seek. mr. rhoade?
>> thank you for the opportunity to speak before the committee. it's very important to me. i hope i've communicated issues along with resolutions after reflective thought and i'm humbled to be asked here. i appreciate the opportunity to be heard if there's one thing that i wish the committee would have oversight on is the directed reassignment policy. it is abysmal. this is not personal. it's professional to me as a partying suggestion, i would do i an audit of all tsa programs awards, hiring, external to tsa because you cannot fix a problem unless you diagnose it correctly. tsa has a history and certainly demonstrated that the responsiveness at times has not been there, however embarrassing it is, but in order for us to get healthier, we have to diagnose the problem and we have to take our medicine.
president of the parents television council on the recent report on the 20 years of tv content rating system. the system intended to protect children from violence and sex and profanity on tv has failed. he's joined by david shepherdson reporter for reuters. >> there's no show, no series on broadcast television today that is rated appropriate for anything older than tv, tv 14 is the oldest rating. even the most explicit content is rated as appropriate for children to watch. we learned that the tv networks themselves rate the shows and learned that the tv advertisers who pay the bills for the networks rely on ratings just like parents do. tlsz a conflict of interest in terms of rating content accurately. a lot of advertisers won't sponsor mature audience only content therefore the tv networks don't rate anything appropriate for mature audiences and the system is incapable is doing as it was intended. >> watch "the communicators"
tonight on c-span2. >> later today a discussion on human rights in north korea, featuring a member of japan's liberal democratic party, 2:30 p.m. live on c-span. next up, a look at very ways to prevent sexual violence in the military. participants include pentagon officials and psychologists, this is 1:45. >> good afternoon, everyone. i want to welcome you to today's event. the continue you'll of harm in the u.s. armed forces. my name is judy patterson, ceo of the servicewomen's action network and voice of women in the military. swan is a member driven community network advocating for the individual and collective
needs of servicewomen past, present and future. i want to take just a moment to thank the women in military service to america memorial for being our host today in this beautiful facility. and also to specially thank their wonderful staff. on behalf of swan, i'm honored to have you join us to discuss this important issue. >> sexual assault and harassment are increasingly view as a public health issue within and outside the mill trixt the complexity and immediacy of the issue is apparent by the range of stories reported in the media. from the development of video games intended to encourage prevention to allegations of doctored reports and testimony before congress. swan was formed in 2007
primarily because of the lack of attention being focused on this issue by the va. swan has played a major role in holding sex offenders accountable and eliminating barriers to disability claims for those who have experienced military sexual trauma. during today's program, we hope to expand the discussion to prevention. we have a number of great speakers participating who will help us understand the continue um of harm. our speakers will also explore the organizational approaches being taken in the department of defense to address the problem. finally, our speakers are going to explain how to interrupt cycles of violence at the
individual personal level. it's going to be a great dialogue and i hope that we all walk out today with new knowledge and new ideas and new motivation to make a difference. the continuum of harm is part of the new servicewomen's institute series of events which is a national year long program for diverse group of military women designed to provide the knowledge and tools they need to reach their personal and professional goals and to increase their participation at the top levels of local and national organizations. this event and others like it throughout the year are made possible by generous grants from american express and the newman's own foundation. and with that, i want to thank you all for joining us and encourage you to participate actively. everything said today is on the record. so we encourage you to
participate both in person and online where you can discuss today's event on twitter using the #continuum of harm. so i want to introduce our first guest speaker, dr. margaret stockdale. peggy stockdale is a professor of psychology and chair of the department of psychology at indiana university perdue university at indianapolis. she's the co-author and co-editor of five books, including the psychology and management of workplace diversity. and sex discrimination in the workplace, multidisciplinary perspectives. she's also published widely in research journals and books on topics ranging from sexual harassment and sex discrimination and public health initiatives. she has served as an expert
witness for both plaintiffs and defendants in sex discrimination cases. and dr. stockdale teaches courses on workplace diversity and industrial organizational psychology and social science research methods. and finally she is a fellow of the american psychological association, the society for industrial organizational psychology and the society for the psychological study of social issues. so let's take a minute and welcome dr. stock -- dr. stockdale who's going to talk about the continuum of harm and its application to the military. [ applause ] okay, how do i queue this up? can you see that?
no. lights. well, that's getting started. i want to thank you for this opportunity to speak with you about military sexual assault and to connect it to a broad understanding of the continuum of sexual violence. first a disclaimer though. i am not an expert on the military nor have i or my family members served in any branch of the military. i did grow up near two air force bases, sack head quarters in bell view, nebraska and andrews in prince georges county, maryland. i have tremendous respect for the military institution and the women and men who serve or who have served our country. and walking around the cemetery today for the first time in 30 years has really been a humbling experience. my training is in the field of industrial and organizational
psychology and my interest throughout my career have focused on gender issues in the workplace with the lion's share of that research on sexual harassment. my research touched on several different aspects of harass. s, including how targets of harassment perceive and label their experience and how others perceive and define sexual harassment and effectiveness of various coping strategies or response strategies to being harassed and understanding men's sexual harassment experiences and many other issues. several years ago a colleague of mine at the university of kentucky t.k. logan, received a large federal grant to study women who had received a domestic violence protection order and her study included a comprehensive baseline assessment of sexual and other forms of violence as well as a follow-up survey on additional violence and other types of
experiences after receiving the protection order. she invited me to include measures of sexual harassment and thus my adjoujourney to understand how sexual harassment is connect the to other forms of violence began. among other things, we found women who had been abused as children as well as the severity of their sexualized abuse as adults was related to their experiences of sexual harassment on their jobs in this year of -- in this survey study. in other words, we learned that sexual harassments can be one of the ways that abuse survivors unfortunately experience revictimization. another colleague of mine, joel and i wrote a conceptual paper to articulate how sexual harassment is conceptually and i am pierically related to other forms of violence. the 2011 workplace gender
relations survey had recently been released so we were able to describe research on military sexual assault as well as the programs and policies being introduced by the sexual assault prevention and response office. in essence the paper outlined the continuum of harm with the focus on sexual harassment in that continuum. and it serves on one of the sources of which my talk is based. what i hope to accomplish in this talk is to familiarize you with the research that has been done primarily with military samples on multiple forms of sexual or interpersonal violence. that includes sexual harassment and present theoretical perspectives on co-victimization and put this all into perspective with regard to the military. and finally, i'll discuss some policy and practice implications. the two panel discussions will then focus on military specific
approaches to understanding and combatting this continuum of violence from both an organizational perspective and individual perspective. to start, i want to describe the forms of sexualized and interpersonal harm that are the components of the continuum of harm that i'll be discussing. although these are often described as component ofs violence against women, there is a growing awareness that men are also targets of sexualized and interpersonalized experiences and men's experiences are targeted as well. childhood sexual assault and other forms of child abuse, that involve physical abuse and neglect and emotional abuse, is typically as occurring before the age of 14. by an assailant who is five to ten years older, thus includes peer to peer harassment. after age 14 and before adult hood it may be described as
adolescent sexual assault and could involve penetrative and not penetrative assault. intimate partner violence is physical sexual or nonpenetrative assault. interpartner violence is physical, sexual or psychological harm by a current or former partner or spouse. it could occur among heterosexual and same-sex couples and does not require sexual intimacy. adult sexual assault is more broad than intimate partner violence. in fact intimate partner violence could be a subset of adult sexual assault and includes rape, sexual assault and unwanted sexual contact. legal definitions vary by state and jurisdiction but it includes nonconsensual sexual contact and threat of force by bodily harm or sexual contact with someone unable to provide consent. military sexual assault is essentially adult sexual assault
that occurs in the context of military service. sexual harassment consists of gender harassment, which is verbal behavior, physical acts and symbolic gestures that are not named at sexual cooperation but convey insulting, hostile and degrading attitudes about women or men, unwanted sexual attention, such as unwanted offensive looks and comments, telephone calls, e-mails of a sexual nature or sexual coercion, which is the extortion of sexual corporation in return for job-related considerations. scholars and sexual harassment also distinguish between attraction-based harassment and rejection-focused gender harassment. the legal definition of stalking
also varies by jurisdiction. but generally it involves unwanted, annoying and threatening pursuit of another. the criminality of stalking adds the element of a reasonable sense of threat and criminal intent to instill fear. missing from my typology is mobbing and other forms of hazing and bullying, which will be discussed in later sections and i'll let those speakers introduce and define those concepts. in studies of military relevance samples, which includes active duty military service members and v.a. samples, there is a wealth of survey data that documents the fact that individuals who experience one form of sexual violence often experience or have experienced in the past another form of sexual violence.
those with a history of child sexual assault were five times more likely to experience military sexual assault than others. the co-occurrence of in-service actual harassment and sexual assault and post service sexual assault is significant for both women and men. there are different clusters of ways females veterans feel sexual violence as well as sexual harassment which 26% experiencing both intimate partner violence and sexual harassment. additional data that active duty servicewoman men and men that experienced sexual assault are likely to have experienced sexual harassment and experiences of child sexual assault perspectively predicts sexual harassment during a military career.
my colleague will provide updated statistics on most recent and comprehensive survey of military sexual assault and harassment conducted to date. to make sense of these and others filings there are ways to sort outweighs multiple sexual interrelated. this frame work distinguishing between the temporal differences in the experiences of assault and harassment that is experiences that are separated significantly across time such as child sexual assault and adult sexual assault or sexual harassment. experiences more or less
co-occurring where the temporal distance short and framework distinguishing between the types of perpetrators, partners or pham my members versus acquaintances, co-workers, bosses or strangers. the perpetrator are typically different than the perpetrator of the current assault this is commonly referred to as revictimization and individuals who have been sexual assaulted either in childhood or adolescence or as adults have an increased risk of being assaulted or abused by others and in other forms later in life. for example, child sexual assault survivors are more likely than others to end up in abusive relationships as adults. a re -- recent study showed that
victims of sexual assault and violence were more likely than others to experience sexual harassment on their jobs for concurrent violence, the perpetrators may be the same person or group of people who may stock or harass as a gateway to more extreme forms of assault. for example, a stalker may become a sexual harasser who then may become a sexual assault perpetrator. the location of the abuse may create jurisdictions complexities for example in the case of dissolved workplace romance. the assault of experience may be considered intimate partner violence but when it occurs in the workplace, it might be considered sexual harassment.
concurrent experience may involve multiple forms of abuse such as harassment, mobbing as a culture that condones aggression and tolerance of harassment and related behaviors. research on harassment and assault of tolerant organizational climate point to an in difference to claims of harassment. light penalties, lax policies as well as environments that are male dominated, sexualized and violence is generally -- and where women are perceived to be treading on jobs and locations that have historically be the province of men.
next i want to describe frameworks and theories useful for understanding multiple victimizations, especially those ecological framework is to organize various factors that impact revictimization so the stereotype is challenged and we can understand victimization as a function of overlapping systems. the develop system refers to the factors associated with the onset of the initial abuse and aftermath that is resulted from those early abuse experiences so that are at risk to impact long-term coping skills and life trajectory like poverty that can increase their exposure to victimizing experiences in the future. the micro system refers to the immediate situation in which the followup abuse occurs and these are the situations that trigger the revictimization. for example, working in a sexualized or male dominated work environment such as bars. some factory environments, some protective force occupations and
maybe the military. the proximity is increased and where the immediate environment may trigger abusive behavior. the system reflects a broader contact that influences victimization through effects on social structures that facilitate abuse. for example, abuse survivors may be less likely to have economic and educational resources or other forms of social power that will buffer risk of future abuse. it includes cultural attitudes towards repeated abuse. so, for example, blame the victim attitude or just world which allows people to sustain the belief that bad things happen for a purpose, as well as various social stereotypes and all things women and all things
feminine. routine activity or lifestyle theory comes from the criminal justice literature and the confluence of a crime. specifically personal victimization occurs when there are motivated offenders sit swaited with suitable targets of an environment lacking or weak. we know from research that motivated offenders are typically men but not always that adhere to hypermasculine beliefs and attitudes. research shows it